KiMare wrote: <quoted text> Imagine if an airplane engineer generalized facts like you do. "That part is not bad, it is different." I have been 'telling' people the facts that conflict with the reality. You are enabling denial. You think that is a caring thing to do. It is not. I would guess that you have a 'haunting' in the back of your mind about your condition. To justify it, you seek others to accept your 'mosaic' denial by trying to justifying theirs. Your last thought about children is a perfect example. And just a note; Reality doesn't need the law to exist. Smile.

Stocking wrote:

<quoted text>Ok, but people are more than their bodies (machine parts). An aircraft does not have feelings.A genetic mutation or a sexuality differentiation does not make a person less valid, and I don't agree that anyone ought to think so. True, those who are not procreating are not serving that aspect of the species; but then who's to say it isn't part of nature's design to limit itself. Besides, gay couples can have children in various ways if they choose.I don't have a haunting, I was wondering if you did! Like I said before if you're happy calling yourself a monster then that's Ok. I would wonder about Anybody who called themselves by a derogatory term.No, reality doesn't need the law to exist, but the law is part of reality. The reality is if the law says marriage includes SS then it does. Marriage is a legal document and definition not an entity unto itself.

You are not being honest.

-The point is not about feelings, it is about distortion.

-Where have I said being a mutation makes me less valid? Nor is the mutation my fault. It happens to make me distinct. And an incredible curiosity. I find that a positive extremely often.

-You can 'say' homosexuality has any reason for existence. Only some are true. See the difference?

-Ss couples cannot 'have' children. Do you see what your denial is trying to equate?

-Yes, the law is a part of reality. But no, if the law denies reality, reality doesn't change. The reality is, the law is simple wrong.

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult HOT CHICKS with BIG TITS do anyone?

Oh, I forgot to say KiMare.I have no denial or need for justification. Like I said you use the word 'chimera' and I use the word 'mosaic' but we are actually referring to the same thing. I am not trying to justify my intersex (your word here is hermaphrodite). It needs no justification. I am who I am and am completely accepting of myself. I was not trying to justify myself by justifying you, I was curious and slightly concerned as to your image of yourself because of you calling yourself a monster. Mutation, Ok, but monster implies something horrid to be disliked.

'Mosaic' and 'chimera' do not refer to the same thing. The DNA of two people in one body is not a mosaic, it is a genetic mistake. The same thing is true of being intersexed.

I accept the reality of that, you apparently do not. You cannot therefore, honestly be accepting yourself.

As to monster, it is a tongue in cheek acknowledgment of the degree of my mutations. Just a note, I have not shared them all. Which brings up another meaning of monster; large.

You deny you have no denial, but then you go an prove you do over and over. It would not be a stretch to say you have a terminal case of denial...

KiMare wrote: <quoted text> You wish honey. My point all along is that reality is unbeatable and has a vicious bitch slap.

Big D wrote:

<quoted text>Same sex marriage is as valid and as legal as your marriageFactAnd that fact is spreading, becoming a fact in more and more states and nations every year, lately every monthalso a factWelcome to your "bitch slap" of realityturning your head and denying the fact, doesn’t change the fact

Tell your mom and dad they are exactly the same as a ss couple. You might get a pre-bitch slap slap...

KiMare wrote: <quoted text> You wish honey. My point all along is that reality is unbeatable and has a vicious bitch slap. The denial and deceit of this issue is going the same way it has every time it has in the past. Failure and disappointment is inevitable. Smile.

Dusty Mangina wrote:

<quoted text>And my point, all along, it's that your "reality" is yours alone. The bitch slap that you're so anxiously awaiting isn't going to happen. Or, should one happen, you'll be the one getting slapped; perhaps by your inner lesbian. Your tenacity is admirable, but ultimately failure and disappointment are yours.Troll on, Kuntmary.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>1. I keep specifically pointing out why you fail as a professional social worker. You simply made an ad homoan attack.2. There were, are and will be Pastors. There never was, is or will be ss couples 'married'. See the difference?Smirk.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>1.) Just because you bash my work as a social worker doesn't mean that you know anything about my performance or what I do.2.) You keep lying about how there never were, and there are not now Same-Sex marriages. You, as a pastor, KNOW that these comments are outright lies, yet you continue to make them.3.) You cry about being "attacked". That's rich, coming from the likes of you. If ya can't stand the heat, Mary, skip out of the kitchen.

1. Your behavior on here is a reflection of who you are. You disgrace your profession.

2. I simply pointed out the extreme scarcity of any historical record of ss 'marriages'. You lied. Again.

3. I haven't complained about being 'attacked' I simply pointed out how silly stupid your attack was.

Go back to the Greeneville Topix VV, you clearly are not ready for the big league.

KiMare wrote: <quoted text> Which brings up the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex. The violent imitation of natural, normal sex. A clear distinction between ss couples and marriage at the most intimate level. See the difference between a crude ad homoan gay troll attack and an indisputable point of reason? Smile.

veryvermilion wrote:

<quoted text>You keep speaking about the inherent harm, unhealthiness, and demeaning nature of anal sex. And yet people, gay and straight, have been engaging in it for eons--still do today. It's as old as time.Your obsession with other peoples asses never fails to make me chuckle.You have your head so far up your own ass, I don't see how you have time to have your nose in anyone else's. That must be quite a trick.

Does who or how many doing a harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act change the reality of it? Are you serious? THAT is your argument? How old are you? Is this an example of your professional reasoning? Unbelievably childish and stupid!

Nor are you 'chuckling' when I bring up anal sex. It annoys the hell into you.

<quoted text>He is in a dwindling minority of Americans.I think anyone that hands their moral compass over to political figures ( you know, those guys behind the pulpit that twist ancient texts to mean whatever they want them to mean for today ) are broken mentally and emotionally.I happen to be straight myself, so are my children, I do have a few friends in the LGBT community, specifically a very close friend in the T category that I speak with every week ( although on the other side of the country for the last couple of decades )My problem with these bigots is their un-American attitude. Wanting to single out a group of people based on Race, Color, Creed, Sex, Religion, Orientation or National Origin and deny them equal rights is specifically un-American.

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of several states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

That about sums it up.

What harm would a loving marriage of three consenting adult HOT CHICKS with BIG TITS do anyone?

<quoted text>You seem to think that the LGBT community is acting in some secretive manner; that our attitude needs to be "exposed" so that others can see it.We have acted above board with regards to our processes. We have sought justice through the court systems.Just because you don't believe we are acting in a way that the Constitution permits doesn't mean that we don't have the right to pursue whatever avenues we believe we need to take.How many court cases are heard each year in which plaintiffs are told that their case has no merit?These people aren't abusing the court system. It just means that a judge or group of judges believe that they are wrong in the eyes of the law.So, if we fail at the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean that we have acted duplicitously.Besides, if our argument was so obviously out of step with the Constitution, how did it get this far? Don't you think our case would have been struck down by Judge Walker, the three Appellate Judges, or refused by the Supreme Court?Apparently, folks seem to think our argument warrants their time and attention.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>1. I keep specifically pointing out why you fail as a professional social worker. You simply made an ad homoan attack.2. There were, are and will be Pastors. There never was, is or will be ss couples 'married'. See the difference?Smirk.<quoted text>1. Your behavior on here is a reflection of who you are. You disgrace your profession.2. I simply pointed out the extreme scarcity of any historical record of ss 'marriages'. You lied. Again.3. I haven't complained about being 'attacked' I simply pointed out how silly stupid your attack was.Go back to the Greeneville Topix VV, you clearly are not ready for the big league.Smirk.

At least I've never been run out of a state--never had my spouse get on forums to look for a new place to live...

<quoted text>Seem to be noticing some back peddling there VV...It's too late. You've exposed yourself again (shame, shame).Imposing a farce at any cost. Even desecrating the Constitution.Traitorous VV. Traitorous.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>Which brings up the inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex. The violent imitation of natural, normal sex. A clear distinction between ss couples and marriage at the most intimate level.See the difference between a crude ad homoan gay troll attack and an indisputable point of reason?Smile.<quoted text>Does who or how many doing a harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act change the reality of it? Are you serious? THAT is your argument? How old are you? Is this an example of your professional reasoning? Unbelievably childish and stupid!Nor are you 'chuckling' when I bring up anal sex. It annoys the hell into you.Smile.

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>Imagine if an airplane engineer generalized facts like you do. "That part is not bad, it is different."I have been 'telling' people the facts that conflict with the reality. You are enabling denial. You think that is a caring thing to do. It is not.I would guess that you have a 'haunting' in the back of your mind about your condition. To justify it, you seek others to accept your 'mosaic' denial by trying to justifying theirs.Your last thought about children is a perfect example. And just a note; Reality doesn't need the law to exist.Smile.<quoted text>You are not being honest.-The point is not about feelings, it is about distortion.-Where have I said being a mutation makes me less valid? Nor is the mutation my fault. It happens to make me distinct. And an incredible curiosity. I find that a positive extremely often.-You can 'say' homosexuality has any reason for existence. Only some are true. See the difference?-Ss couples cannot 'have' children. Do you see what your denial is trying to equate?-Yes, the law is a part of reality. But no, if the law denies reality, reality doesn't change. The reality is, the law is simple wrong.Do you feel a 'haunting' now?

How am I not being honest? What Exactly am I denying? And my point was you can't compare people in the same way as you would compare engineering equipment because they have feelings. Homosexuality is not anybodys 'fault' either.We all have a reason for existence else we wouldn't be here. Whether we are a mutation or not we are all a little unique in our own ways, just as we all have similarities too. I know you didn't use the wording of 'less valid' but the word 'monster' is derogatory, which could imply negativity. Yes, I find it positive too. Wouldn't want to not be a 'mutation' I know SS couples can't 'have' children in the basic sense. No-one is denying biology. SS couples have surrogates, or whatever if they want children. The law is not wrong simply because you don't agree with it. The law generally does what it sees fit to benefit the majority of people in society. As SSM does not have a direct or actual effect on opposite sex couples' marriages; and people want the option of SSM it has become law. SS couples with or without marriage will be together and some will be having (by indirect means) children. With or without SSM hetero couples will be doing the same as they are doing now, and have always done. Why would I feel a 'haunting'? And no I don't, do you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.